Re: MPS and PLoS Sign Agreement

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

One could simply post one's work online with a notice such as the 
following: "This work is made available to the public by the 
author who asserts no rights under U.S. copyright law and permits 
all uses of it subject only to the condition that the author's 
name accompany the text every time it is reproduced."

As noted, under U.S. law, attribution is not guaranteed as a 
right. So if attribution is desired, this needs to be stated as a 
condition separate from the waiver of copyright. Under European 
law, "moral rights" including attribution are inalienable, so the 
condition above would be superfluous.

I wouldn't call this a "license" at all, but simply a voluntary 
waiver of rights by the author. To me, "license" suggests a 
contract between the author and one or more users.

Perhaps I don't understand exactly how the CC licenses work, but 
do users all have to "sign" these licenses in some manner? Or do 
they operate more in the manner of a "click-on" agreement, about 
which I understand there is some controversy as to their legal 
validity?

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press

>I see three possible advantages to authors in using the
>Attribution license adopted by PLOS:
>
>1.  As Sandy notes, it ensures that authors receive credit for
>their work in a nation that does not recognize moral rights.
>This is the primary advantage over dedication to the public
>domain (which itself would require a different CC license). 2.
>It simplifies for authors the process of granting rights.  Sandy
>correctly notes that "One could simply grant to users free use of
>the article for any purpose with no need to protect attribution,
>since that right is inalienable in 'moral rights' systems."  But
>how would one grant users "free use of the article"?  The CC
>license is an easy, standard way of doing so. 3.  Most of all, it
>makes it explicit that one's work is intended to be part of the
>"republic of scholars," where advances in scientific knowledge
>are freely shared for the betterment of society.
>
>Sandy, are you suggesting that the public domain dedication
>license should be used instead?  Why would the public domain be
>preferable to an attribution license?
>
>Peter
>
>Peter B. Hirtle
>CUL Intellectual Property Officer
>Scholarly Communications and Special Collections
>Cornell University Library
>Ithaca, NY  14853-5301
>peter.hirtle@cornell.edu
>http://www.copyright.cornell.edu